March 25, 2020

Purdue economist: Three ways the proposed stimulus package could be more effective

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — As businesses close and unemployment rises during the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, Congress is considering a $2 trillion stimulus package that would include direct payments to Americans based on income and family size, according to the Associated Press.

These direct payments are sometimes called tax rebates and other times they are called cash transfers, but by any name they are the best way for the government to get money to households quickly.

But evidence from previous stimulus bills in 2001 and 2008 shows that most of the money sent as direct payments was saved or used to pay down debt rather than being injected into the economy, says a Purdue University economist.

 

mumford-k20 Kevin Mumford Download image

Associate professor Kevin Mumford, the Kozuch Director of the Purdue University Research Center in Economics, said there are three ways that direct payments could have a greater economic benefit:

Salience: Mumford has written about how the prominence, or salience, of tax credits can influence how taxpayers respond.

“When people hold the physical check or receive a letter telling them that a large sum was deposited into their account, you’ve got a better chance of having economic impact,” he said. “A payroll tax cut has low salience and does nothing for those who can’t work.”

Spending: Only about a quarter of the stimulus money in 2001 and 2008 was spent within the following three months, Mumford said. Unlike then, consumers are even less likely to spend their stimulus checks as they shelter in their homes and as businesses close their doors due to the spread of the virus, he added.

“People are spending a lot less,” Mumford said. “Is the reason that they don’t have enough money, or is the reason that they are following the instruction to stay at home? Direct payments will not have a large effect on aggregate demand, but should instead be thought of as social insurance.”

Targeting: Sending checks to every American is administratively easier, but less effective and much more expensive, Mumford said.

“The more targeted the stimulus is at those who most need the money, the better,” he said. “Those most likely to spend the money are those whose jobs have been furloughed, or they’ve been let go. The people who would be most likely to spend the money are those who are most in need.”

If targeting is too administratively complicated, the direct payments should be taxed back from households who don’t see a decline in earnings after the crisis is over, he added.

“Now isn’t the time to worry about the size of the government debt, but we need to worry about it once we get through this,” Mumford said.

About Purdue University

Purdue University is a top public research institution developing practical solutions to today’s toughest challenges. Ranked the No. 6 Most Innovative University in the United States by U.S. News & World Report, Purdue delivers world-changing research and out-of-this-world discovery. Committed to hands-on and online, real-world learning, Purdue offers a transformative education to all. Committed to affordability and accessibility, Purdue has frozen tuition and most fees at 2012-13 levels, enabling more students than ever to graduate debt-free. See how Purdue never stops in the persistent pursuit of the next giant leap at purdue.edu.

Writer: Joseph Paul, 765-494-9541, paul102@purdue.edu

Source: Kevin Mumford, mumford@purdue.edu (also available for phone and Skype interviews)

 

Note to Journalists: A stimulus stock image and a photograph of the professor are available to journalists via Google Drive.

Purdue University, 610 Purdue Mall, West Lafayette, IN 47907, (765) 494-4600

© 2015-20 Purdue University | An equal access/equal opportunity university | Copyright Complaints | Maintained by Office of Strategic Communications

Trouble with this page? Disability-related accessibility issue? Please contact News Service at purduenews@purdue.edu.